05_food_for_thought_visual_ugly-foodYou are what you eat. So, does that make you a better person if you eat organic? Is it worth shelling out the extra money for organic food, or is it all a marketing ploy by the organic food lobby?

We had a comment from Peter, who believes that switching to organic food would confer environmental and health benefits that are “too numerous to name”. This is a common argument in favour of organic food: they are more nutritious, healthier, free from pesticides, better for the planet, and better for animal welfare. But is this too good to be true?

A recent Soil Association poll had 55% of shoppers citing “healthy eating” as a key reason they bought organic, while 53% said “avoiding chemical residues”. However, the science tends to be more sceptical about the health benefits of organic. One recent study did find that organic food has more antioxidant compounds linked to better health, and lower toxic metal levels. However, a major 2012 study showed that there are no significant health benefits.

To get a response to all this, we spoke to Benedek Jávor, a Hungarian MEP with the Group of Greens in the European Parliament, and a biologist and academic with a focus on the environment. Did he think that the benefits of organic food were being exaggerated?

We also had a comment from Georges, who questioned whether it would ever be possible to produce produce organic food on a scale that could satisfy the whole European market. How would Benedek Jávor respond?

Does organic food really make a difference? Or are the benefits of going organic being exaggerated? Let us know your thoughts and comments in the form below, and we’ll take them to policymakers and experts for their reacations!

143 comments Post a commentcomment

What do YOU think?

  1. avatar
    Bobi Dochev

    Damn…. you amaze me every day! So now even the organic food is not enough? Of course it wont be – you pushing us to TTIP and CETA where the GMO is in first place so you have to spread your propaganda on daily bases! A lie said 100 times become a truth right?

    • avatar
      Andre Lopes

      “The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) plays a key
      role in the authorisation of thousands of products ending
      up in the food chain (GMOs, pesticides, food additives,
      nanotech products). But there are some fundamental

      • Nearly 60% of EFSA’s experts had ties with biotech,
      food, or pesticide companies (2013) . In the past,
      many experts and members of the management
      board of EFSA had close ties to the industry lobby
      group ILSI (International Life Sciences Institute),
      funded by Monsanto all the major food and biotech
      corporations. Since a few years EFSA no longer
      allows experts to have close ties to ILSI.
      • Studies to judge risks of products are done by the
      industry itself. Independent research is often not
      available or is dismissed or ignored.
      • For pesticides the details of those studies have
      been kept secret for the claimed reason of ‘business

      “Corporations from all sectors to push succesfully
      for even stronger rights to keep information
      and corporate data secret from the public: ‘trade
      secrets’. This will seriously endanger the work of
      journalists, whistle-blowers, unionists, independent
      researchers and NGOs. New and very similar
      legal proposals were discussed at the same time
      in the EU and in the US. Trade secret rules have
      now been largely harmonised across the Atlantic
      – TTIP avant la lettre. In Brussels the corporations
      organised their lobby through the ‘Trade Secrets
      & Innovation Coalition’, with DuPont as one of its
      members and working jointly with chemical lobby
      group CEFIC.”

      Lobby associations
      and conflicts of interest (read all here) https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/attachments/monsanto_v09_web.pdf

  2. avatar
    Leonardo Monteiro

    Yes organic food really makes a difference! Socioeconomically and ecologically.
    Socioeconomically since most GMOs seeds and plants are only produced by a small number of multinationals that have almost the monopoly of the world in therms of seeds and GMO plants, respectively. Multinacionals like Monsant and Bayer. Plus, the fertilizers and herbicides you can use or are effective are only produced by, guess who, yes the same companies that have the seeds monopoly therefore all that money would go for only one company and since they have the monopoly they could control the prices the way they wanted and no-one would be able to stop it. An example of this is what Monsanto does to indian farmers.

    Ecologically since organic food doesn’t introduce quemicals that are not only ingested by us humans who eat those same products *and yes you can cite a lot of studies and all that crap but if you truly look at the data and search at Pubmed, you will see that organic does make a diference* and may add a extra risk of developing cancer and other diseases, it also doesn’t pollute the soils and impoverishes those same soils that will lose it capacity to produce food in the next generations. And we can’t forget about the water pollution what has catastrophic results like eutrophication having major impacts.

    EDIT: Stop trying to push crap down our throats because i don’t see “organic food lobby” but I do see a “neo-liberal, f*ck the environment” lobby in your articles.

    • avatar
      Bódis Kata

      Well put, thank you. :)

    • avatar
      Pete John Stoneham

      And I wonder who is benefiting from the companies who are producing chemicals to fight cancer.

    • avatar

      Well that was impassioned! And I agree with your key points. But I don’t think soil pollution can be removed by just getting rid of chemical fertilizers etc. Since certain animal excrements are also harmful to the soil according to studies (not certain if livestock animals are, but it’s a possibility) and besides that there’s all the damage from pollutants from agricultural machinery (and industrialisation in general). So in short there’s the fact that truly organic food doesn’t exist in Europe today. Then there’s this belief that organic farming could supply enough food for us all, for a start, yes it possibly could, if you lived close to a supply of fresh food, were willing to eat a seasonal diet and only buy locally sourced food so preservative ingredients are not required. And even then it would require more labour investment in agriculture to produce the same levels of output. The entire reason we went from hunter gathering to farming was because of savings in labour freeing people up to be able to do other work so we could advance in other areas of civilisation. Art, literature, sciences, medicines, emergency service providers, factory workers. Our way of life requires these. Also, if a farmer must pay more labourers for the same yield, costs will rise, not everyone can afford these increases. Especially not farm labourers, so they need a wage rise, costs go up again . . . . . . . .
      So in short, I think organic is better, but I don’t believe it a truly valid option for all and I don’t think the benefits to soil quality would be total, if they may be significant.

    • avatar
      Jean-Pierre Rosa

      You think organic means “no pesticides” are you kidding me?

    • avatar

      Organic means naturally occurring. Pretty sure that would include not deliberately spraying pesticides over things you plant.

  3. avatar
    Stefania Portici

    non si capisce perchè il biologico dovrebbe costare di più ! Queste mele che vediamo in foto , più che biologiche sembrano colpite dalla grandine . La mela biologica vale la pena mangiare sia la buccia che la polpa perchè hanno caratteristiche antitumorali Se la vendono tutta bucherallata in quel modo non ha senso il bio, io non la comprerei neanche a 1 centesimo .Basta mettere dei teli antigrandine sopra agli alberi da frutto che non si ammaccano., belle ,senza pesticidi , senza fertilizzanti e biologiche .

    You do not understand why organic should cost more! These apples you see in the picture, rather than biological seem affected by hail. The organic apple worth eating either peel the flesh because they have anti-cancer characteristics If not sell all bucherallata like that it makes sense to the bio, I do not buy it even at 1 cent .Basta put towels over the hail of fruit trees that does not dent., beautiful, no pesticides, no fertilizers and biological.

    • avatar
      Aljoša Jarc

      Le varietà meno note e più volte vecchie di mela sono quasi tutte così, specialmente se non vengono spruzzate. La mela del supermercato viene spruzzata anche 20 con pesticidi prima di essere raccolta. Ma se non hai mai avuto a casa un albero di mele, non puoi capirlo, perché si è imposto che il frutto deve essere bello per essere buono. Ma è come se dicessi che una persona brutta non può essere intelligente…

    • avatar
      Stefania Portici

      la mia zona è zona pregiata per le mele. Prima di tutto non tutti i luoghi vanno bene per coltivarla . Un conto un albero per casa , come sono si mangiano, e un conto è per la vendita. Va coltivata sulle montagne il freddo stesso è una barriera contro le malattie da parassiti , erba sotto l’albero che poi andrà tagliata e sarà quell’erba un fertilizzante , teli antigrandine il tutto in modo NATURALE. Il problema del supermercato ci sta perchè vengono importati prodotti da Paesi dove queste regole non ci sono . Da noi non si possono spruzzare pesticidi sul bio e ci sono limitazioni in generale. Gli agricoltori hanno un tesserino che viene rilasciato dopo aver superato degli esami e chi non ha quel tesserino non può, può fare solo lavori manuali

  4. avatar
    Luis Serpa

    I don’t think it makes a difference. It’s a fad, an a new shape of old anti-capitalism, a fake evacuation of bad conscience.

  5. avatar
    Matej Zaggy Zagorc

    We did an experiment once in school. We put a home grown organic clove of garlic and a bought one (imported) and placed them both in the same petri plate on each side. We proceeded grow a bacteria colony in it. We placed in intk an incubator for a a week or so. The end result was that the home grown garlic, had a ring of about 8mm of space around it and the bought one was practically covered in bacteria.
    If you do not believe that organic is better, I suggest you try the same or similar experiment.

    • avatar
      Jasper Kamphuis

      That doesn’t prove anything else than the antibiotic activity of your home-grown garlic… which might differ between strains and age of the garlic, for which you didn’t control in the ‘experiment’ because you used imported garlic.

    • avatar
      Elena Salinas Martínez

      And of course that imported garlic is probably “older” than the home grown one 😅.

  6. avatar
    Eimhin David Callanan

    Does presenting an image of shitty apples do anything for the argument against organic, you bet, framing says a lot about one sidedness in debate.

  7. avatar
    Mihaela Nora

    I like the comments. I have always known that given the facts and not lies, people would make choices beneficial to them and in their own interests. Showered with lies and manipulation they will make a choice against their own interests and in the interests of a few. After many years of scientific study of public opinion in matters of foreign and domestic policy I can affirm this with a great deal of confidence.

  8. avatar
    Paul X

    Go to your nearest organic shop and see all the “air miles” the produce has travelled then come back and say how brilliant for the environment it all is

  9. avatar
    Julia da Silva

    How dumb can u get , sorry I mean , people in general…??? Of course organic is the only way , without pesticides and without GMO strains ( no manipulation). All natural is the only way it should be… Tastes nicer and is much richer in nutrients … Not even open for debate , it is an established fact… But you are posing a stupid question : “Does it make you better”? You mean as a person ? You stop being who you are /mean or not , and become something else ??? Hello??!!! What kind of a question is that ? And yes it even does that… With better food, you get cleverer… less stupid , get it ??? Your brain gets to function better, you make better decisions too… Lol…

  10. avatar
    Julia Hadjikyriacou

    Well I will tell you from direct experience after going to A&E several times with unexplained allergic reactions after eating food I am not allergic to that i was told I am probably allergic to pesticides on fruit and veg and to wash it well. So for that reason I would prefer organic. Chemicals are for profit not for health.

  11. avatar
    Zita Inacio

    Organic === not has toxis need to know our body needs “””our body need to have good care is one machine and we are ambitious ??? to give the best with love joy wonder ===

  12. avatar
    Gerry Greaves

    NO SUCH THING AS FULLY ORGANIC FOOD if you think there is you have been BRAIN WASHED,,,, from an ex farmer who knows

  13. avatar
    Andre Viana

    Organic my ass. Europe uses more fertilizer than Canada. I live there every winter.

  14. avatar
    Marcelo Melo

    It seems obvious to answer, in general, that less chemicals on food is a preferable option. The pertinent question is another one: how much does it cost to have a full supply of “organic” food to the masses? Is it possible at all? At what expenses: more land area being farmed? How much more land?

  15. avatar

    Medical research shows that it does.

  16. avatar
    Julia Hadjikyriacou

    I get odd allergic reactions and I have been told in the hospital A&E that it is due to pestcides and to wash my produce well. So yes, organic is the way forward. Chemicals remain in the blood and have even been found in breast milk. And I also read the body converts and stores chemical toxins in fat. If pestcides weren’t toxic they couldn’t kill bugs and those spraying the plants wouldn’t need protective suits. I know I know studies show…but when scientists in Canada protest publically about being asked to change scientific data the public begins to lose trust in scientific studies proving products are harmless.

  17. avatar
    Patricia Smith

    Who knows but at least one knows its provenance and therefore a conscious choice over labelled or unlabelled GMO

  18. avatar
    Ante Radnić

    Pesticides are made to prevent live organisms, no matter in what form they are they are all made with same purpose, herbicides, fungicides, rotendicides… You use them in one year to prevent or kill this organisam, but we eat food treated with them all the time. And storage them inside of our body. People are strange. It’s same like in time when X-rays where invented, so they used them on fairs for fun. This is even worse, we know that we consume dangereous chemicals, but still asking people is it organic make difference.

  19. avatar
    Ivan Burrows


    Of course not, its just hype and advertising for a higher profit for the same product, an apple is an apple no matter how you grow it.

  20. avatar
    Ivan Burrows


    In 1970 Norman Borlaug was awarded a Nobel prize for genetically creating disease resistance wheat strains that have eradicate famine in large parts of the world saving an estimated one billion lives.

    Was he wrong ?

    • avatar
      Ante Radnić

      And what will help us one day when there will be 9 billion? Or even 10?

    • avatar
      Laetitia Karlsdóttir

      yes it can: soils are over exploited, and the amount of chemicals has diminished the amount of nutrients contained in fruits and vegetables to just 25-30% of what they used to provide. I guess that’s also one of the reasons why we eat much more today, because mass produced food doesn’t provide our body with what it needs.
      one other thing: reducing meat consumption would create some free space for farming, so that’s another argument :)

    • avatar
      Ivan Burrows


      You say we can feed 7 billion people but the soil is over exploited already ?

      You don’t see that as a contradiction ?

    • avatar
      Laetitia Karlsdóttir

      2 billion people suffer from a lack of nutrition, and mass production isn’t spread everywhere in the world. the over exploited soils I mentioned are the ones already exploited for mass production i.e. mostly in Western “developed” countries. I should have said “soils over their natural capacity of production due to pesticides” instead of “over exploited” only.
      I’m of course obvioulsy not an expert but I still don’t think there’s any contradiction. it’s not too late to reverse this mass, industrial production logic

    • avatar
      Ivan Burrows

      Laetitia Karlsdóttir

      So the only way to feed those 2 billion people is more intensive farming and less organic farming which only goes to appease the conscience of the sandal wearing Western middle class.

      I think you have just agreed with me.

    • avatar
      Laetitia Karlsdóttir

      come on, on the long term this isn’t sustainable!!! ok let’s keep on with intensive farming, it might feed us for 2 or 3 more decades but eventually the ressources will disappear. and I can assure you that organic production, although it might be becoming a trend let’s say, is far from appeasing my “sandal wearing Western/ middle class”. maybe to a few ones but definitely not the majority. everyone is hit by the chemicals and all the pesticides, I don’t care about conscience but about what I eat and breathe and I truly believe that’s the case for most people.

    • avatar
      Ivan Burrows

      Laetitia Karlsdóttir

      So we should let 2 billion people die without trying to feed them because you don’t like chemicals ?

      If you have a solution other than organic magic I’m sure the scientific community would love to hear it.

    • avatar
      Laetitia Karlsdóttir

      please don’t reverse what I was trying to say: I’m making the exact opposite point. organic farming is a long term sustainable and ethical way of producing not only for the Western world but also (and especially) in order to feed everyone both sufficiently and qualitatively speaking. but apparently I shouldn’t even have expected having a chat with you (meaning a chat with arguments and points)

    • avatar
      Ivan Burrows

      Laetitia Karlsdóttir

      Given the 2 billion people facing starvation only do organic farming clearly it not sustainable otherwise they wouldn’t be staving.

  21. avatar
    Faddi Zsolt

    The only, the ultimate solution IS organic food! Multinational agricultural companies don’t have interests in organic food, so the EU (or the states of EU) should exile those companies (Monsanto, Syngenta etc.) from Europe and support small farmers who produce organic food only!

    • avatar
      Kevin Smit

      What about Whole Foods? They’ve billions in profit. And guess what: They’re a scary “company” too.

    • avatar
      Brian Huebner

      You may be right, but you are missing a much bigger picture.

  22. avatar
    Kevin Smit

    No. Hopefully genetically modified foods will be allowed soon. Maybe that will be the one thing Brexit is good for.

    • avatar
      Faddi Zsolt

      My oppinion is that the USA is playground of UK and Israel! Hopefully the states of the EU won’t sign the TTIP shit and those monster-companies can seed the USA, UK and Israel with genetically modified shit-seeds!

    • avatar
      Bódis Kata

      Go ahead, ruin your exports. :D

    • avatar
      Kevin Smit

      Please. It’s time to end the ban on GE, a technology that saves millions of lives, just because of export regulations and farmers (for example France and Hungary). We can’t stay stuck in the past. It’s time to move forward on this.

    • avatar
      Laetitia Karlsdóttir

      I have to say I disagree with you: farmers would become completely dependent on big companies such as Monsanto since they’d have to buy the crops on a regular basis. so genetically modified crops: 1) create an economic dependence 2) are toxic for health because of all the chemicals and antibiotics they were exposed to (not to mention the fact that Monsanto produces both the pesticides and the crops…. 3) large scale organic agriculture is possible since it respects the natural cycle of seasons and the soils, which, along with diversifying the cultures, can produce just as much as intensive agriculture.

    • avatar
      Kevin Smit

      Farmers already buy seeds, so I’m not sure what you mean? Of course farmers are “dependent” on companies selling seed organic, conventional, or GM.

      And I’m also not sure what you mean by antibiotics and chemicals? GE and organic alike can use pesticides, however organic have to get by with a limited list, and GE allows for this resistance to be build in the plant, thus allowing the farmer not to use pesticides, reducing the need.

      Yeah, companies often produce more than 1 type of product, and often these are related to each other.

      Organic agriculture might be possible, but if you won’t allow Arctic apples or golden rice, then you’re missing out on advantages that could save lives and reduce food waste.

    • avatar
      Laetitia Karlsdóttir

      Kevin Smit from what I’ve understood farmers need to buy and replace genetically modified seeds and crops more often than traditional ones; they also are much more expensive. in India for example the situation is quite dramatic for thousands of farmers who’ve been relying on modified crops, maybe you’ve heard about it as well?
      the crops are conceived in order to resist pesticides through antibiotics, thus my concern about the dosis of those chemicals present in the food produced and that we then eat.
      the problem is that the biggest company Monsanto is particularly problematic on an ethical level: it was bought by the pharmaceutical laboratory Bayer a few months ago, this automatically raises questions doesn’t it? “we create the poisonous and we can then cure it”
      so genetically modified might save lives but for how long and at what cost (both ecologically, health and ethically speaking)??

    • avatar
      Kevin Smit

      If you’re refering to the myth on suicides of Indian farmers, that’s false.

      And of course seeds that have higher yields might cost more than seeds who don’t, that’s normal.

      The produced amounts in plants are less than the sprayed amounts, for example in BT corn. And those sprayed amounts are non-toxic levels. So based on that concern, I think you’d be for GE.

      And the biggest problem in your eyes is the aqusition of one company by another. So you’d support small companies who produce GE plants?

    • avatar
      Laetitia Karlsdóttir

      how is that a myth?
      I’m in favour of no pesticides at all, so even if the produced amounts are less than the sprayed ones I’m not convinced :) the biggest problem to me isn’t the fact that only one big company is controlling the market, it’s a whole in which I find the danger for health most concerning. of course I’m not naive and I know that all-organic production isn’t to be reached soon but at least I believe it’s a goal we should aim

  23. avatar
    Goran Lee

    When I grow fruits and veggies in my garden, treat every and each plant with love and extra care, they will give me something much better then I can get on supermarkets shelves. Proven.

  24. avatar
    Bódis Kata

    Food for thought: the vitamin content of mass produced foodstuff is greatly diminished compared to what it used to be.

    • avatar
      Laetitia Karlsdóttir

      I think I read that one 1960’s apple is worth 110 nowadays apple; quite impressive to see how much the nutrients have diminished because of mass production…

  25. avatar
    Julia Hadjikyriacou

    It is obvious that chemicals are bad for your health. Pharmaceuticals is the third largest killer in the US. We have diabetes and obesity from processed sugar. And I personally have been to A&E with strange allergic reactions which I was told was probably from pesticides. So using nature, common sense & caring is the way forward as humanity is suffering the consequences of these profit mad corporations who feed us poison for profits and snuff out small caring farmers whilst building a monopoly on agriculture.

    • avatar
      Michael Šimková

      Meanwhile, back in reality, people are living longer on average than they ever have before with a record number of centenarians.

    • avatar
      Julia Hadjikyriacou

      Living longer and being healthy are two different things. Just because I am still alive cos pesticides didn’t kill me yet they send me to A&E doesn’t make it ok. Just because sugar gave me pre-diabetes but didn’t kill me doesn’t make it ok. Drug interactions did kill my mother though-that is not ok.

  26. avatar
    Charles Buhagiar

    Yes it does for producers to make more profits without any benefit to consumers, apart from the health hazards of such produce which don’t know of

  27. avatar
    DetecAndre Ramirez

    Soy empresario Agricola los frutales organizacos,naturales y de buena calidad tienen mejor sabor y nutritivos.

  28. avatar
    Nicola Piazzalunga

    Of course, organic food makes a difference. Just read a little bit that is not fake news about it and you immediately grasp it.

  29. avatar
    Laszlo Nagy

    What’s most important, is that organic food contains no serious chemicals. Many of the weedkillers and pestizides used on plants can be unhealthy in large amounts, and their half-life can last for decades. If an animal or human eats conventionally sprayed plants, the chemicals from the feed or food will concentrate in that organism. If a cow eats 500 kg of feed made from heavily sprayed plants, the chemicals from that feed won’t all just leave through the digestive system, the molecules stay in the meat. What’s more, animals farmed for their meat get antibiotics to grow larger. Then these antibiotics might harm humans too. As people normally eat animals from non-organic farming, the chemicals concentrate further in humans. After the basic farming of plants and animals, comes the processing by food industry. In non-organic processing many substances are allowed that can’t be found in nature at all, not even as rocks. Eating organic means consuming less chemicals.

  30. avatar
    Johan S Volstaat

    u nead REAL food, not GMO, dump all GMO foods immidatly , work the lands…. and btw….. force the chemtrails to stop asap, even if needed bye force, where is the airfoce and where is the AA when u need it????

  31. avatar
    Manuel Alegria

    just another comercial brand… the same ones are making money with it…
    people are stupid and do exactly what midia says…

  32. avatar
    Julia Hadjikyriacou

    In this day and age, when reports are cited there should be a note on who conducted the study, who sponsored it and who paid for it. Studies are no longer enough evidence. Especially noted were the scientists in Canada who protested because they were asked to change their findings. Or studies for sugar being sponsored by sellers of sugar. Etc.

  33. avatar
    Ivan Burrows


    None whatsoever. Given modern life expectancy & quality of life are a direct result of advanced mass production farming practices changing it to ‘organic’ would be disastrous.

    • avatar
      Jude De Froissard

      What answer can we expect from someone who works within the E.U. parliament. ..that is mainly concerned about economics and is dependant on big societies who don’t give a …..about the citizens and keep themselves busy with undemocratic unilateral laws

    • avatar
      Ivan Burrows

      Jude De Froissard

      If it as the word ‘European’ in it then it’s part of the problem, not the solution.

  34. avatar
    Yiannos Phiniotis

    Definitely as organic don’t contain the hazardous chemicals provided by dangerous conventional foods. As long as the strict organic food cultivation standards are followed by governments then organic is 100% better than the contaminated non-organic food provided by Monsanto and other man killing companies. Years ago chemical pesticides did not exist and neither cancer existed !!!

  35. avatar
    Franco Suarez

    I always thought that not eating poisoned food was good for your health. Your inquire defies intelligence.

  36. avatar
    Paweł Kunio

    It does. Look at less developed cultures/societies and their stats of cancers and other modern diseases. Its lower. Why? They eat less chemicals in their food. Promoting the organic farms and less processing of meat and diary products will pay back dearly. Antibiotics and other stuff in meat is anotherr topic but could be covered with same set of policies/approach to the broader topic.

  37. avatar
    Jason Picci

    Question submitted By: Calvin Thompson
    If insects will not eat gmo foods then why would people want to eat them?

    Response from Community Manager, Moderator for GMOAnswers.com · Friday, 4/18/2014 7:03 pm
    According to a recent analysis of crop damage and loss by insects in Brazil, “insect pests cause an average annual loss of 7.7% in production in Brazil, which is a reduction of approximately 25 million tons of food, fiber, and biofuels. The total annual economic losses reach approximately US$ 17.7 billion.” In order to limit this damage from pests and the resulting economic impacts, GM crops have been developed with targetedinsect resistance, which includes Bacillus thurigiensis, or Bt, to intentionally keep those pests from eating our crops.

    Cornell University professor Tony Shelton discusses Bt in another response, which is included below.

    “Strains of Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) are commonly found in soil. The genes within Bt produce many different proteins in the soil, and there are thousands of different arthropods, nematodes and microorganisms in the soil. There are books written about their potential or actual interactions; however, it should be remembered that these interactions are a natural part of the soil ecosystem.

    “Briefly, insecticidally active Bt proteins generally interact only with insects that have a specific pH in their digestive system and a binding site in their gut that can attach to a specific site on the Bt protein. The requirement for a specific pH and a unique binding site means that a Bt protein can have an effect on target pests or closely related insects but at the same time have no effect on other insects or organisms. This narrow spectrum of activity also means that we would expect the Bt in genetically engineered crops to have fewer effects on insects and other microorganisms in the soil than agricultural practices such as tillage or conventional broad-spectrum insecticides.

    “Since Bt evolved in the soil along with the other microorganisms and insects, the complexities of their interactions likely have come into what might be called a balance. It is very hard to generalize, but when we have looked at organisms such as insects, nematodes and microorganisms in the soil, they are not harmed by the Bt proteins used in Bt products or Bt plants.”

  38. avatar
    Lino Galveias

    it does. It is healthier, tastier, better for the environment and for smaller producers.

  39. avatar
    Val Anderson

    not really when you consider this … when something is labeled “organic” it only has to be a certain percentage organic, not 100% organic

  40. avatar
    Nijole Gulbinaite

    Obuoliai ,manau,is Lietuvos,nes nelabai grazus,plemuoti. Turime ir geresniu. Del skonio nesigincisiu. Asmeniskai megstu saldinius arba avietinius.

  41. avatar
    Ivan Burrows

    ‘Organic’ is just a marketing tool designed to fool the simple minded into believing they are buying something better, an apple is an apple no matter how you grow it. People who eat to much and still fat and people who do not eat enough are still malnourished, sticking an idiotic sticker on an apple changes nothing.

  42. avatar
    Bódis Kata

    It also makes a difference to the environment.

    Organic usually costs more because the production is more labor intensive and the organic fertilisers and pesticides are much more expensive.

    • avatar

      we just meke poor use of natural resources to create compost; we HAVE TO be using our brains, not our hunger for power or money to fuel our necesities regarding organic food production, and by doing that, you will find out tat the ways to produce organic fertillizers have always been right in front of us and ppl long before us have used them, but nooo, the actual chemicals serve an industry that is designed to kill as much of the healthy and sane population of the planet, as possible; that said, just think harder on waste and ways of being sustainable (as Nature is) and you might find a solution to the question you’ve touched upon and the higher prices of ‘organic farming’; plus+ maybe it SHOULD be that way, food SHOULD be expensive so that ppl who don’t value Life die off and only those who are willing to take care of the body as it needs to be treated, stay alive by virtue of maintaining health. namaste /

  43. avatar
    Julia Hadjikyriacou

    When debating Europe states studies for a debate this transparent format should be written at the end if the article for each study referenced:

    Potential conflict of interest, funding, source, publisher, original research.

  44. avatar
    Yiannos Phiniotis

    Absolutely! There are no dangerous pesticides, antibiotics, growth hormones, chemical preservatives and all the garbage found in conventional food

  45. avatar

    oh, well – think in terms of ethics and this will answer your question;

    if people had better quality food they wouldn’t suffer as much of mental and physical illnesses and be more creative+productive – like in the old days when you could have superheroes (as in Ancient Greece) who would fight wars and be mighty, instead of go homeless or be COOL (bling, flashy) but devoid of depth and actual might (meaningfulness); fighting for morality is a GOOD cause, so even that alone is the better reasoning if you even consider doubting the food that is healthy for your body and for the planet’s ecosystems -_- the true debate ought to be – how to fund organic farming better in the EU, not whether or not food should or shouldn’t be HEALTHY and farming – sustainable, ethical and responsible for the future *no comment*

  46. avatar

    Of course it does, it’s more labour intensive to produce, it uses more energy to produce, it costs more, it’s no better for you and it could never feed the population..

    Clearly it’s just another marketing ploy to separate fools from their money.

  47. avatar

    In one’s pocket it does for sure. But also I would’t be surprised if these bio products are just a strategy to make rich people fill better about themselves because they can afford products that others don’t.

  48. avatar

    sometimes yes, it depends on the product…for example organic milk has ~70% more “good” fatty acids than normal milk, fruits tho don’t have that much difference.
    Plus, about the milk, price aint that much different, it is something like 10 cents more…

  49. avatar

    In time, weeds and insects get resistant to the chemicals sprayed. More and more will be needed, until the chemical agents will be useless. Organic farming methods, on the other hand, are sustainable – more use of machines and spraying with indirectly effective agents. And when eating organic, there is less need to worry about how well you washed that fruit.

Your email will not be published

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Notify me of new comments. You can also subscribe without commenting.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

More debate series – Food for Thought View all

By continuing to use this website, you consent to the use of cookies on your device as described in our Privacy Policy unless you have disabled them. You can change your cookie settings at any time but parts of our site will not function correctly without them.